In Other News…

By | June 17, 2009
1 Comment

K. Eric Drexler hates nanobots.

I know. That’s like saying that Santa hates reindeer, but this comes straight from the man himself. And he lists some pretty good reasons for feeling the way he does.

Moreover, he points out an unfortunate general tendency:

Some widespread ideas about research objectives

* are bad
* seem absurd to most scientists
* are inconsistent with my ideas and publications
* are nonetheless widely attributed to me

Drexler’s blog is a great read. When he’s not busy setting the record straight, he takes the time to explain things like how to understand everything.

Very useful!

  • Sally Morem

    I have been guilty of using the term “nanobot” to designate tiny devices that would do things such as these (Drexler responded to a question here):

    “Short terms will always be in use, and �nanofactory� is a reasonable label for an important and fundamental class of anticipated technologies. Microscopic medical devices will of course be feasible; therapeutic nanoparticles of various sorts are under development, and nanoscale structures can be made progressively smarter on a continuum that leads to quite sophisticated � and precisely targeted � devices. The practice of lumping together a wide range of devices under a label that has come to mean �magic nanobugs� should, I think, be discouraged.”

    I see no problem with the term. I believe Drexler is being a bit cranky, and is underestimating where nanotech may be going. “Mature nanotechnology” (another term used in the blog thread) will lead, IMHO, to the development of these tiny machines doing all of the above and much much more.

    BTW, one respondent asked about J. Storrs Hall’s use of “nanobot” in his depiction of how utility fog would work. Drexler didn’t respond to that question.